TERFs, gender, sex, etc.

13468921

Comments

  • We don’t know enough about how sexual orientation is formed to know if it is present at birth. Biological processes are interactive with the environment.

  • We don’t know enough about how sexual orientation is formed to know if it is present at birth. Biological processes are interactive with the environment.
    The key word I think is "interactive".
    orfeo wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Orfeo, given that there is evidence in regard to sexuality (no idea how strong that may be, nor how general), I'd repeat my question - how does that affect matters? Does the evidence to which you refer go beyond sexuality to gender identification?

    I previously referred to evidence from post mortems of transgender people suggesting that yes, their gender identification has a biological basis in their brain. Presumably that was lost in the lecture I got about what "intersex" means *rolls eyes*.

    The problem with such evidence is that it is correlational at best: the brain changes if observed are quite possibly as much as products of life experience as causative. As I noted above, various human activities show brain changes: meditation is referenced since at least the 1980s, with the learning of routing data of London, England cab drivers, people who have lost their sight or hearing, learned additional languages also showing clear physical alterations in brain function.

    We also see systematic changes in brain function for people who have had traumatic experiences, and because military funds things so well, we even know where these changes occur (hippocampus, pituitary, adrenals, other parts of the limbic system, with spillovers into other endocrine organs including even pancreas and liver) and what the hormonal consequences are. Finally, from a conference at the time of legalisation of cannabis in Canada, the presentations were about the brain changes in the under age 25/27 male/female bimodal due to exposure to both THC and CBD - the neural pruning (loss of neurons) is systematically different between users and non.

    My point in belabouring this all is that we cannot say much at all about complex human behaviour, roles, and genetic causation. It's wishful thinking.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    We don’t know enough about how sexual orientation is formed to know if it is present at birth. Biological processes are interactive with the environment.

    Yes I'm aware.

    Having said that, some of the evidence does point to hormone levels in the womb as one part of that environment that might be important. Interacting with the environment starts quite early.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    My point in belabouring this all is that we cannot say much at all about complex human behaviour, roles, and genetic causation. It's wishful thinking.

    And yet, there are scientists busily working away on what you consider to be mere wishful thinking.

    There is now good evidence that certain genes correlate with homosexuality. Exactly why and how is not yet known, but the existence of a genetic component has been examined pretty rigorously.

    Within a couple of generations, we've gone from struggling to figure out how DNA works to making the extraction of DNA from cells a fun science experiment given to high school students to get them interested in science. So much for wishful thinking.

  • We don’t know enough about how sexual orientation is formed to know if it is present at birth. Biological processes are interactive with the environment.
    The key word I think is "interactive".
    orfeo wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Orfeo, given that there is evidence in regard to sexuality (no idea how strong that may be, nor how general), I'd repeat my question - how does that affect matters? Does the evidence to which you refer go beyond sexuality to gender identification?

    I previously referred to evidence from post mortems of transgender people suggesting that yes, their gender identification has a biological basis in their brain. Presumably that was lost in the lecture I got about what "intersex" means *rolls eyes*.

    The problem with such evidence is that it is correlational at best: the brain changes if observed are quite possibly as much as products of life experience as causative. As I noted above, various human activities show brain changes: meditation is referenced since at least the 1980s, with the learning of routing data of London, England cab drivers, people who have lost their sight or hearing, learned additional languages also showing clear physical alterations in brain function.

    We also see systematic changes in brain function for people who have had traumatic experiences, and because military funds things so well, we even know where these changes occur (hippocampus, pituitary, adrenals, other parts of the limbic system, with spillovers into other endocrine organs including even pancreas and liver) and what the hormonal consequences are. Finally, from a conference at the time of legalisation of cannabis in Canada, the presentations were about the brain changes in the under age 25/27 male/female bimodal due to exposure to both THC and CBD - the neural pruning (loss of neurons) is systematically different between users and non.

    My point in belabouring this all is that we cannot say much at all about complex human behaviour, roles, and genetic causation. It's wishful thinking.
    Brain scans of living transgender people match the gender they say they are rather than the one assigned at birth. If there is wishful thinking, it would seem to be more by those denying trans.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Orfeo, given that there is evidence in regard to sexuality (no idea how strong that may be, nor how general), I'd repeat my question - how does that affect matters? Does the evidence to which you refer go beyond sexuality to gender identification?

    I previously referred to evidence from post mortems of transgender people suggesting that yes, their gender identification has a biological basis in their brain. Presumably that was lost in the lecture I got about what "intersex" means *rolls eyes*.

    As to how that affects matters, well it gets into fairly basic questions about the nature of reality, doesn't it? We've had a case not that many years ago of a woman who decided to identify as black despite there being no objective basis in her family tree for that. Even more bizarrely, within the last couple of years there was a man who complained of ageism because he 'identified' as being several decades younger than he actually is.

    I think it's fairly fundamental to ask the degree to which we allow people to purely construct their own reality, as opposed to us all having a mutually shared and observable reality. There's a difference between things that exist although we don't have the tools to readily observe them, and things that simply don't have an existence that would ever be observable even with better tools.

    When it comes to transgender people I'm inclined to believe their own self-identification. But that word "believe" is different to saying that oh well, people can just make up whatever stuff they're inclined to make up and everyone else just has to accept it. If someone decides they're actually a human-salmon hybrid, just go with it, in the complete absence of any evidence that they genuinely have salmon characteristics? No. I don't think self-determination goes that far.

    I believe transgender people when they self-identify because I consider that it's not an identity they've chosen to construct, but it's real. If I could peer into their brains I would see it. For one thing, I don't think anyone would choose to just make up a transgender identity because it's no fun whatsoever (just as the whole notion of choosing to be gay presupposes that I'm some kind of masochist who wanted all the complications).

    But if it IS something that people just decide upon... then why the hell should all the rest of us accept it? If you insist that you're a 5 foot tall West African woman, and I can see damn well that you're not according to all observable data, what exactly is the benefit of me agreeing with you?

    I think it matters a great deal to say that transgender folk are not just making shit up, if we want the rest of the world to take them seriously and treat them well.
    It shouldn't matter, though. A white person saying they are black is problematic because of what black people go through and because it has the effect of wearing a culture as a costume.
    Not sure how someone identifying as transgender has a real effect on anyone else.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thank you for your long post Orfeo. That takes this thread a considerable distance. Certainly your comment about the reality of the identification of trans-gender people needs repeating and repeating. Then the example of the limitations on self-defining.

    As I read it, I wondered if it were often better to say "accept" rather than "believe". Does that sound condescending? It might to some.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Orfeo, given that there is evidence in regard to sexuality (no idea how strong that may be, nor how general), I'd repeat my question - how does that affect matters? Does the evidence to which you refer go beyond sexuality to gender identification?

    I previously referred to evidence from post mortems of transgender people suggesting that yes, their gender identification has a biological basis in their brain. Presumably that was lost in the lecture I got about what "intersex" means *rolls eyes*.

    As to how that affects matters, well it gets into fairly basic questions about the nature of reality, doesn't it? We've had a case not that many years ago of a woman who decided to identify as black despite there being no objective basis in her family tree for that. Even more bizarrely, within the last couple of years there was a man who complained of ageism because he 'identified' as being several decades younger than he actually is.

    I think it's fairly fundamental to ask the degree to which we allow people to purely construct their own reality, as opposed to us all having a mutually shared and observable reality. There's a difference between things that exist although we don't have the tools to readily observe them, and things that simply don't have an existence that would ever be observable even with better tools.

    When it comes to transgender people I'm inclined to believe their own self-identification. But that word "believe" is different to saying that oh well, people can just make up whatever stuff they're inclined to make up and everyone else just has to accept it. If someone decides they're actually a human-salmon hybrid, just go with it, in the complete absence of any evidence that they genuinely have salmon characteristics? No. I don't think self-determination goes that far.

    I believe transgender people when they self-identify because I consider that it's not an identity they've chosen to construct, but it's real. If I could peer into their brains I would see it. For one thing, I don't think anyone would choose to just make up a transgender identity because it's no fun whatsoever (just as the whole notion of choosing to be gay presupposes that I'm some kind of masochist who wanted all the complications).

    But if it IS something that people just decide upon... then why the hell should all the rest of us accept it? If you insist that you're a 5 foot tall West African woman, and I can see damn well that you're not according to all observable data, what exactly is the benefit of me agreeing with you?

    I think it matters a great deal to say that transgender folk are not just making shit up, if we want the rest of the world to take them seriously and treat them well.
    It shouldn't matter, though. A white person saying they are black is problematic because of what black people go through and because it has the effect of wearing a culture as a costume.
    Not sure how someone identifying as transgender has a real effect on anyone else.

    Why "shouldn't it matter"?

    And then straight away you give an example of it mattering to you.

    Given what women go through, why doesn't it matter to you if a man identifies as a woman? Because that's what you end up saying if you say it doesn't matter. The conclusion ends up being that any old man can say they identify as transgender woman.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Thank you for your long post Orfeo. That takes this thread a considerable distance. Certainly your comment about the reality of the identification of trans-gender people needs repeating and repeating. Then the example of the limitations on self-defining.

    As I read it, I wondered if it were often better to say "accept" rather than "believe". Does that sound condescending? It might to some.

    "Accept" works fine for me.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Orfeo, given that there is evidence in regard to sexuality (no idea how strong that may be, nor how general), I'd repeat my question - how does that affect matters? Does the evidence to which you refer go beyond sexuality to gender identification?

    I previously referred to evidence from post mortems of transgender people suggesting that yes, their gender identification has a biological basis in their brain. Presumably that was lost in the lecture I got about what "intersex" means *rolls eyes*.

    As to how that affects matters, well it gets into fairly basic questions about the nature of reality, doesn't it? We've had a case not that many years ago of a woman who decided to identify as black despite there being no objective basis in her family tree for that. Even more bizarrely, within the last couple of years there was a man who complained of ageism because he 'identified' as being several decades younger than he actually is.

    I think it's fairly fundamental to ask the degree to which we allow people to purely construct their own reality, as opposed to us all having a mutually shared and observable reality. There's a difference between things that exist although we don't have the tools to readily observe them, and things that simply don't have an existence that would ever be observable even with better tools.

    When it comes to transgender people I'm inclined to believe their own self-identification. But that word "believe" is different to saying that oh well, people can just make up whatever stuff they're inclined to make up and everyone else just has to accept it. If someone decides they're actually a human-salmon hybrid, just go with it, in the complete absence of any evidence that they genuinely have salmon characteristics? No. I don't think self-determination goes that far.

    I believe transgender people when they self-identify because I consider that it's not an identity they've chosen to construct, but it's real. If I could peer into their brains I would see it. For one thing, I don't think anyone would choose to just make up a transgender identity because it's no fun whatsoever (just as the whole notion of choosing to be gay presupposes that I'm some kind of masochist who wanted all the complications).

    But if it IS something that people just decide upon... then why the hell should all the rest of us accept it? If you insist that you're a 5 foot tall West African woman, and I can see damn well that you're not according to all observable data, what exactly is the benefit of me agreeing with you?

    I think it matters a great deal to say that transgender folk are not just making shit up, if we want the rest of the world to take them seriously and treat them well.
    It shouldn't matter, though. A white person saying they are black is problematic because of what black people go through and because it has the effect of wearing a culture as a costume.
    Not sure how someone identifying as transgender has a real effect on anyone else.

    Why "shouldn't it matter"?

    And then straight away you give an example of it mattering to you.

    Given what women go through, why doesn't it matter to you if a man identifies as a woman? Because that's what you end up saying if you say it doesn't matter. The conclusion ends up being that any old man can say they identify as transgender woman.
    Partly because what transgender people go through after coming out is analogous to what gay people and black people go through.
    They are not gaining anything in society. And probably because it is not a fluke like Dolezal or the bloke with the age thing.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Well sorry, but I still don't see the distinction. You're actually putting forward the proposition that it shouldn't matter whether or not someone's identification has any basis in reality.

    At the same time as acknowledging that you'd have to be some kind of masochist to choose these forms of identification, but it's you who's saying it shouldn't matter. And yet you're making distinctions between cases where it doesn't matter and other cases where you seem to think it DOES matter.

    I'm struggling to see why whether or not you perceive an advantage in the identification should affect the question.
  • You've made the same case, so colour me confused.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited December 2019
    Louise wrote: »
    hosting
    Could people please stop the tangent about the nature of religious belief? That could be discussed in Purgatory on its own thread but it's starting to take us away from the main subject here.

    Thanks,
    Louise
    Epiphanies Host
    hosting off

    At mousethief's request in the Styx, I split the thread and there is now a new thread in Purgatory entitled "Choosing to Believe?"

    B62, Epiphanies Host
  • The traditional response to queries about the basis for trans identity, is to ask the same question about cis identity. Is there investigation into children's adoption of gender identity? There is some, for example, the idea of early flexibility around gender, followed by rigidity, and then a further relaxation, once gender consistency has been achieved. This is based loosely on Kohlberg's ideas about gender development, over 50 years old but still used.

    This is a cognitive model, that is, children are processing information about gender from their environment. Presumably, it should be integrated with various biological and psychological developments, and should make allowance for gender nonconformity.

    No link, Google Kohlberg + gender.
  • I forgot to say, this doesn't answer the question as to the "reality" of gender distinctions and identities. I'm not sure about that.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    You've made the same case, so colour me confused.

    No I haven't. I haven't suggested that objective reality matters in some cases and not in others. My entire shtick has been that it does matter.

    You're the one who said "it shouldn't matter" in response to what I had said, so clearly you didn't think I'd made that case.

  • BlahblahBlahblah Suspended
    edited January 1
    I was wondering overnight if what we are witnessing is a form of Fear of trans people.

    A little like forms of anti-Semitism where people are gripped by wild conspiracies about Jews.

    My train of thought was when I began thinking what parents would think if older people self-identified as much younger people and went to infant school classes. I think parents would likely be worried for the safety of their 5 year olds.

    If we replace the classroom for toilets/bathrooms, then the Fear is that trans people are "just abusive men" who want to break into safe spaces for women.

    And of course you only need one offender who uses their trans identity to abuse women to create a pattern.

    --
    I was trying to think about how to address this Fear. It seems fairly clear to me that it is misplaced, and that women are quite capable of abusing women in those safe spaces without needing to feel scared about trans people.

    But I don't know what there is to be done about it.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Suspended
    My daughter, who teaches children with learning difficulties, says my thought above is so ridiculous that it isn't worth discussing.

  • Statistically, excluding trans women won't significantly affect cis women's safety. On the other hand, excluding trans women from women's spaces puts them in very real danger. Based on my anecdata, many cis women have not fully considered that their transphobic anxieties are insignificant compared to the violent, even murderous treatment trans women experience from men in men's spaces.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    My daughter, who teaches children with learning difficulties, says my thought above is so ridiculous that it isn't worth discussing.

    I worry about the safety of my small children when they're playing with physically larger
    children. I don't worry that anyone has bad intentions - I worry that excited larger children will accidentally trample / knock over smaller ones.

  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Statistically, excluding trans women won't significantly affect cis women's safety. On the other hand, excluding trans women from women's spaces puts them in very real danger. Based on my anecdata, many cis women have not fully considered that their transphobic anxieties are insignificant compared to the violent, even murderous treatment trans women experience from men in men's spaces.

    Playing Devils Advocate; So women end up being controlled by the threat of male violence again?

    I don't actually disagree with what you have written though, just trying to work my way through all this.
  • Well, all women - cis or trans - are trying to avoid male violence all the time. If cis women won't share safe spaces, where can trans women be safe?
  • I'm not sure how anti-trans feminists would answer that. There is some talk of separate facilities, as in sport, where there is talk of transgender events. However, this seems like apartheid, and could make trans people even more vulnerable.

    But isn't it the case that many people accept trans people in toilets, etc? Also, it often turns out that trans people have been using a certain facility for decades, and nobody turns a hair. This happened at the Hampstead ladies pool. I saw a programme about this, where various TERFs got hot under the collar, but others said, whatever.
  • quantpolequantpole Shipmate
    edited January 4
    I think many women who are now derided as TERFs were happy (or at least weren't that bothered) when the term was transsexual and recognised that there was little risk. A lot of the rise of the whole thing as an issue is the expansion of the "trans umbrella" and also the accompanying ideology. So if someone can simply declare themselves to be a woman, but are still very male in appearance (because the ideology says that gender is nothing to do with what you look like as it's an inward feeling) then it gives carte blanche to people who might be using women's facilities for more nefarious reasons. (There's also the problem that some places have simply been changing toilets to "gender neutral" - a good approach imo if it's individual separate rooms, but not for typical cubicles.) But because of the nature of the debate, anyone who voices any sort of concern is instantly derided as being a transphobe, TERF, whatever. When to me, even if you disagree with their conclusions, they are not obviously illogical, given the way men have treated and do treat women.

    [ host warning - link below is to a blog by an anti-trans activist, and should be treated with caution- a full host post will follow later- Louise ]

    I've asked before about the conflation of DSDs with trans issues, and here is an article from one woman who is quite forthright in how much she dislikes her condition being used to make out that she is somehow on a sex spectrum. I think it's worth a read, even (or especially) if you disagree with her.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    If you think being trans means "a man turning into a woman" then you have already defined yourself as against what real trains people say about themselves. Anything you say after that will presumably be predicated on this falsehood, and will come across as anti-trans. And if you bat your eyes and say you never meant to be anti-trans, it will come across as disingenuous. In fact a person who frames it that way hasn't really tried to listen to trans people, and is in fact anti-trans.

    This.

    My trans woman friend was always a woman. Now her body has aligned with that reality.

  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    edited January 3
    @quantpole it would be helpful if you would occasionally express a personal view on these things rather than repeatedly linking to random people on the Internet. I have no idea who Claire Graham is, what axes she has to grind, or why I or anyone else should take what she has to say about trans issues seriously. She seems to be very upset about the Maya Forstater judgement. I have read that judgment, from beginning to end, and I am at a loss to understand how it has any relevance to DSD issues. If you personally think it does have some relevance perhaps you could explain why.
  • quantpolequantpole Shipmate
    I've said previously that there seems to be an attempt to conflate DSDs with trans issues, when to me they are different issues. It has relevance to the Forstater case because the judge explicitly talks about sex being a spectrum, using DSDs as an example. If you've read what she has to say then I'm not sure why that is confusing to you. And perhaps you might like to leave the hosting to, y'know, the hosts.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    quantpole wrote: »
    I think many women who are now derided as TERFs were happy (or at least weren't that bothered) when the term was transsexual and recognised that there was little risk. A lot of the rise of the whole thing as an issue is the expansion of the "trans umbrella" and also the accompanying ideology. So if someone can simply declare themselves to be a woman, but are still very male in appearance (because the ideology says that gender is nothing to do with what you look like as it's an inward feeling) then it gives carte blanche to people who might be using women's facilities for more nefarious reasons.
    Because straight, cis men respect the door at a women's facility? right
    Rapists are going to rape.
    quantpole wrote: »
    But because of the nature of the debate, anyone who voices any sort of concern is instantly derided as being a transphobe, TERF, whatever..
    If one is going to weigh in on a debate, it behoves them to actually do a little research. As the research backs trans being a real thing, the transphobe conclusion is not really that far out there.
    quantpole wrote: »
    When to me, even if you disagree with their conclusions, they are not obviously illogical, given the way men have treated and do treat women.
    Logical. You realise logical does not mean reasonable, right, informed or anything beyond being consistent with the parameters of the logic of a given statement/argument? One can make a completely logical argument that the moon is made of cheese, all one needs is the right, though fallacious, arguments.
    The argument is fear based. And, as someone who has been on the receiving end of the feared behaviour, I get it. However, that doesn't make the argument correct or reasonable.
    quantpole wrote: »
    I've asked before about the conflation of DSDs with trans issues, and here is an article from one woman who is quite forthright in how much she dislikes her condition being used to make out that she is somehow on a sex spectrum. I think it's worth a read, even (or especially) if you disagree with her.
    That was a pain to read, it is full of ignorance and fear.

  • quantpolequantpole Shipmate
    edited January 4
    Boogie wrote: »
    This.

    My trans woman friend was always a woman. Now her body has aligned with that reality.

    It's interesting this, because I thought the argument was that as sex is supposedly a spectrum you can't say that body parts were inherently male or female, so what has become aligned? Hence we get articles like
    [Host warning- this article hijacked my browser- proceed with caution- and no it's not an acceptable source in scientific terms. It's simply reportage of what a celebrity said. Louise ]

    this from Pink News (I hope that's an acceptable source to be referencing in this discussion) referring to the "biologically female penis".
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I suppose by ‘body’ I meant more than her sexual organs. I meant her appearance, how she speaks, walks, enjoys being female, and feels ‘right’ in her body.

  • quantpolequantpole Shipmate
    edited August 3
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Because straight, cis men respect the door at a women's facility? right
    Rapists are going to rape.
    Yes. Someone who looks male who was in a woman's facility would make people alarmed. So you want to tell people that actually they're being transphobic if they're alarmed to find a man in the womens toilets?
    If one is going to weigh in on a debate, it behoves them to actually do a little research. As the research backs trans being a real thing, the transphobe conclusion is not really that far out there.
    Where have I said anything about trans not being real?
    Logical. You realise logical does not mean reasonable, right, informed or anything beyond being consistent with the parameters of the logic of a given statement/argument? One can make a completely logical argument that the moon is made of cheese, all one needs is the right, though fallacious, arguments.
    The argument is fear based. And, as someone who has been on the receiving end of the feared behaviour, I get it. However, that doesn't make the argument correct or reasonable.
    So you can understand why some women might be afraid? And that it doesn't automatically come from a place of hatred, as is so often stated? In that case, the compassionate thing is to talk to them, try to negate their worries. But istm that instead we just get name calling and abuse, [redacted].
    That was a pain to read, it is full of ignorance and fear.
    If this is the level of your discussion then why bother replying?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 3
    quantpole wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Because straight, cis men respect the door at a women's facility? right
    Rapists are going to rape.
    Yes. Someone who looks male who was in a woman's facility would make people alarmed. So you want to tell people that actually they're being transphobic if they're alarmed to find a man in the womens toilets?
    A man, no. A transwoman, yes.
    quantpole wrote: »
    If one is going to weigh in on a debate, it behoves them to actually do a little research. As the research backs trans being a real thing, the transphobe conclusion is not really that far out there.
    Where have I said anything about trans not being real?
    That reply doesn't even make sense.
    quantpole wrote: »
    Logical. You realise logical does not mean reasonable, right, informed or anything beyond being consistent with the parameters of the logic of a given statement/argument? One can make a completely logical argument that the moon is made of cheese, all one needs is the right, though fallacious, arguments.
    The argument is fear based. And, as someone who has been on the receiving end of the feared behaviour, I get it. However, that doesn't make the argument correct or reasonable.
    So you can understand why some women might be afraid? And that it doesn't automatically come from a place of hatred, as is so often stated?
    Transphobia ≠ hatred, just as homophobia ≠ hatred. It is not helpful to go all absolutist, especially when you should be familiar with how the terminology works.
    quantpole wrote: »
    In that case, the compassionate thing is to talk to them, try to negate their worries. But istm that instead we just get name calling and abuse [redacted].
    [redacted]
    Not that I am justifying abuse, I am not. [redacted]
    quantpole wrote: »
    That was a pain to read, it is full of ignorance and fear.
    If this is the level of your discussion then why bother replying?
    Cute. But if you cannot see the ignorance of her opinions, then I'm not sure going through it would help. But I will in a moment, just in case.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    OK, regarding Claire Graham.
    First, her reaction to the Maya Forstater judgement misses the point of the judgement, which is this:
    I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
    The takeaway from the case, especially in a legal sense, is about protected beliefs. Forstater's belief was determined to be not protected.
    So, Graham's worries about the rights of women and conditions like Turner syndrome are overstated.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 3
    quantpole wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Because straight, cis men respect the door at a women's facility? right
    Rapists are going to rape.
    Yes. Someone who looks male who was in a woman's facility would make people alarmed. So you want to tell people that actually they're being transphobic if they're alarmed to find a man in the womens toilets?

    Speaking as a woman assigned that gender at birth, it depends what they’re doing. It is not unusual to find men in women’s toilets - usually as cleaners. Sometimes if the gents are out of action and they’ve become temporarily everyone’s toilets.

    If a man were trying to break into a locked cubical then, no, I would not be comfortable with that.

    If I were a predatory male wanting to get access to a women’s toilet, it would surely be easier just to walk in in a boiler suit with a mop bucket. With the added advantage that shedding the boiler suit directly after leaving would make it a lot harder to find me on the basis of a description.

    But it’s amazing how many women are not worried about the possibility of predatory male cleaners.
  • Far too rational, Doublethink. Transphobia is far beyond that.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    A man, no. A transwoman, yes.

    If someone is going to be alarmed by a person of apparently male appearance in a toilet, they are going to be responding to that persons' appearance (and perhaps what they are doing). Whether the person is a man or a trans woman who looks male is going to be irrelevant to the alarm caused, because nobody's going to know.

    Whether it is transphobic to be alarmed by a person of male appearance in a women's toilet cannot possibly depend on whether the person is actually a man or a trans woman,
    because that information isn't available.
  • The fear factor is "someone is breaking social norms" (=therefore potentially dangerous) "who can probably physically overpower me, and this is a witness-free space." Remove any of those three legs and the chair of fear falls to the ground. (For instance, put the male-appearing person in a cleaner's suit or a wheelchair--or add a dozen other people to the scene.)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    If you think being trans means "a man turning into a woman" then you have already defined yourself as against what real trains people say about themselves. Anything you say after that will presumably be predicated on this falsehood, and will come across as anti-trans. And if you bat your eyes and say you never meant to be anti-trans, it will come across as disingenuous. In fact a person who frames it that way hasn't really tried to listen to trans people, and is in fact anti-trans.

    This.

    My trans woman friend was always a woman. Now her body has aligned with that reality.

    Exactly. A simple point completely missed by the Sydney Synod at last year's AGM.
  • The fear factor is "someone is breaking social norms" (=therefore potentially dangerous) "who can probably physically overpower me, and this is a witness-free space." Remove any of those three legs and the chair of fear falls to the ground. (For instance, put the male-appearing person in a cleaner's suit or a wheelchair--or add a dozen other people to the scene.)

    I return to my earlier proposed solution of a camera in the communal space and decent cubicle doors and/or a toilet attendant as was a thing in public toilets back in the day.

    This will have the additional advantage of reducing drug dealing, prostitution and theft in said toilets.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    A man, no. A transwoman, yes.

    If someone is going to be alarmed by a person of apparently male appearance in a toilet, they are going to be responding to that persons' appearance (and perhaps what they are doing). Whether the person is a man or a trans woman who looks male is going to be irrelevant to the alarm caused, because nobody's going to know.

    Whether it is transphobic to be alarmed by a person of male appearance in a women's toilet cannot possibly depend on whether the person is actually a man or a trans woman,
    because that information isn't available.
    I've met cis women who I thought were men and some who I thought were trans. So is alarm there OK because information isn't available?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I've met cis women who I thought were men and some who I thought were trans. So is alarm there OK because information isn't available?

    It must be exactly as OK to be alarmed by a male-appearing cis woman in a women's toilet as by a male-appearing trans woman or by a male-appearing man. Because you have exactly the same information in all three cases.

    I am neither female nor frequent women's toilets, so I don't think I'm qualified to tell you how alarmed you should feel in these cases - just that you should feel the same in all of them.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I think the fear is much ado about nothing. As DT outlines, there is a much more direct route for men to gain access to women's toilets.
  • The fear factor is "someone is breaking social norms" (=therefore potentially dangerous) "who can probably physically overpower me, and this is a witness-free space." Remove any of those three legs and the chair of fear falls to the ground. (For instance, put the male-appearing person in a cleaner's suit or a wheelchair--or add a dozen other people to the scene.)

    I return to my earlier proposed solution of a camera in the communal space and decent cubicle doors and/or a toilet attendant as was a thing in public toilets back in the day.

    This will have the additional advantage of reducing drug dealing, prostitution and theft in said toilets.

    I’d go for this. But it won’t happen because of cost.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I think the fear is much ado about nothing. As DT outlines, there is a much more direct route for men to gain access to women's toilets.

    It’s no use telling people not to be afraid. They will be afraid whether it’s sensible or not. The only thing to do is to find ways to mitigate that fear, so they can think clearly.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    The fear isn't completely rational, so how do you mitigate it?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The fear isn't completely rational, so how do you mitigate it?

    Fear often isn't completely rational. You can't rationalize in the moment. Sometimes you can think rationally about it away from the moment, and train yourself to respond in a different way.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Hosting
    Quantpole, you have previous form for posting poor quality links on this subject. I've flagged two links of yours as problematic.

    The Pink News link had malware issues for my phone browser and was reporting a celebrity's tweet, which might have been fine in other contexts but which is a dubious source for arguing about biology. Because you specifically asked if it was an acceptable source, it's worth pointing out that this could be an acceptable source in other cases but this was a dubious use. This was on the edge and the browser hijacking made me decide on balance to warn on it.

    The MRKH blog posting history seems to be one of zealous anti trans-activism. It's also using the term DSD which is controversial - many people identify as intersex and find the DSD terminology very offensive, though some prefer it. In either case though, this is a personal blog with an anti-trans axe to grind and so not a good link for this board- and it's the kind of thing you've done before. Please stick to better quality articles which aren't clearly grinding an axe if you want to discuss medical/biological/scientific issues.

    Thanks

    Louise
    Epiphanies Host
    Hosting off
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    edited August 3
    Going back a bit, I thought the point about about the Forstater case was that Forstater could not claim that her views represent a philosophical belief system, which gains protection under the Equality Act. I noticed this week-end that ethical veganism was accepted as such by a judge, having satisfied various criteria, including not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.

    It seems a fantasy to argue that anti-trans ideas could be classed as such. Of course, this has been distorted, [redacted], which ignores Forstater's claim that misgendering trans people is free speech and should be protected. Not so.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    As I recall, it's a very narrow ruling, limited to the issue of misgendering. @lilbuddha quoted the key paragraph upthread. There was also some comment that Forstater's comments might also count as harassment in which case they would not be protected even if they otherwise fell under the protections of the Act.

    The decision specifically declined to address other issues, e.g., whether there was a basis to exclude trans women from women-only spaces. As I recall, it said essentially that there would have to be an evidence-based justification for doing so, which is consistent with the approach that modern human rights law generally takes to limiting rights. Rights are not absolute, but limitations on rights have to be justified and proportionate.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    edited August 3
    In fact, [redacted] many right wing and Christian media have portrayed this case as about "sex is real". This is a distortion, it would be more accurate to say, "sex is real, and gender identity isn't".
Sign In or Register to comment.